What does TGP think about re-seeding the playoffs?

[Thanatos 2,847]

This is not a new idea, of course, just curious to know you guys thoughts.

 

In this scenario, all the current teams that made it in would still be in, the playoffs would just be reseeding by record, using "which team won their division" as the first tiebreaker if needed. In other words, a division winner does not automatically get a home game, but they do get a playoff berth.

 

So as follows:

 

1.

2. :Patriots:

3.

4.

5.

6.

 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

[BwareDWare94 723]

This is the only method that makes sense and the NFL needs to make this change ASAP.

[RazorStar 4,025]

There was an option I mentioned last year that didn't gain much steam but I figured I'd mention it again. Every division is a part of four supra divisions that change every year based on your schedule. Since the AFC West played the AFC North this year, they'd be one supradivision while the AFC East and AFC South would make the other. In the NFC it'd be the NFC East and NFC South, and the NFC North and NFC West. In each case, the top team in each supra division would get a bye, and the other four spots would be wild-cards. Doing this gives you these scenarios.

 

AFC:

1. Denver 12-4 (supradivision winner)

2. New England 12-4 (supradivision winner)

3. Cincinnati 12-4

4. Kansas City 11-5

5. Pittsburgh 10-6 (tiebreaker on New York)

6. New York Jets 10-6

 

NFC:

1. Carolina 15-1

2. Arizona 13-3

3. Minnesota 11-5

4. Green Bay 10-6 (H2H tiebreaker)

5. Seattle 10-6

6. Washington 9-7

 

So it doesn't change much from Thanatos' scenario other than getting a 10-6 team in ahead of a 9-7 team that won its division.

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

The one without the Texans

 

jk

 

But yeah I see your point with the supradivisions. We all just look at them as ways to know who teams are playing next year but you're right all those games with common opponents have playoff implications. So they might as well be division-lite games.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Nah, its fine the way it is. I like incentive for winning your division.

[Thanatos 2,847]

I agree you should get some sort of incentive for winning your division, thus the playoff berth. But not a home game.

[butta54 371]

I still lean towards division title not giving you an automatic playoff berth. But I could get behind this idea of re-seeding at the very least.

[Maverick 791]

I still lean towards division title not giving you an automatic playoff berth. But I could get behind this idea of re-seeding at the very least.

Why?

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Because winning your division doesn't mean you're a good team. But anyway, I'd still put division winners in, but reseeding is a great idea.

[56AceInDaPlace 110]

I'm with division winners getting a playoff berth. But not a home game. The 7-9 Seahawks won their division and beat the Saints. Bring the only sub 500. Team to win a playoff game. But they should have to go on the road to be in the playoffs.

[oochymp 2,393]

Typically when you have division winners with poor records it has as much to do with their opponents as the teams within the division.

 

This year was a bit of an exception, interestingly the two shitty divisions this year, the AFC South and NFC East, both played teams in the NFC South and AFC East, both good but not great divisions, but even those divisions did get a champion with a winning record

 

If you look at the two teams that have won a division with a sub-.500 record you're looking at last year's Panthers and the 2010 Seahawks.

 

The 2014 Panthers, by virtue of the divisional schedule system, played the AFC North and the NFC North, as did everyone else in the NFC South. The AFCN and NFCN in 2014 had a combined five ten-win teams, sending all five to the playoffs. Even at the bottom those two divisions only had one team finish under 7-9 (the 5-11 Bears) so is it a wonder that no team with all eight of those teams on their schedule put together a winning record?

 

The 2010 Seahawks, again by virtue of the divisional scheduling system, played the AFC West and the NFC South, as did everyone in the AFC West. Those two divisions weren't quite as good as what the 2014 Panthers faced, but they did have four ten win teams, sending three to the playoffs, and only two teams under .500

 

Why do we need to punish divisions that get screwed over by tough scheduling? Certainly there's some chicken and egg arguing to be done, but with so much similarity in the divisional schedules right now, why should we punish a team that comes out as the best of four teams with schedules that are 87.5% the same to reward a team that couldn't do the same?

 

In response to Razor's superdivision suggestion, you end up with the same bias flaws based on scheduling. For example, using that this year, the AFC South doesn't get a spot, so let's look at how that happened. The AFC South and AFC East would be in the same superdivision because they play each other, but the AFC South teams played every team in the NFC South while the AFC East teams played every team in the NFC East. So you'd rather see a spot go to a team that won one more game despite having one set of four games that is significantly easier? Or do you want to argue that the NFC South isn't that much better than the NFC East? Or is there something else that justifies giving the Jets the spot over Houston?

Edited January 8, 2016 by oochymp

[butta54 371]

But then we are talking about strength of schedule which I think is more appropriate for the college name not the pros. It has its place as one of the tie-breakers, but to use it as a fundamental concept is too much IMO. I rather look at the top records despite all the scheduling factors that teams can't control. If you handle your business you should get in the playoffs simple as that. Now if two teams are similar and one won their division then boom its the first priority tie-breaker. IMO

[Cherry 1,302]

How about a 4-team wild card group at the top and a 2-team division winner group at the bottom with room for a fifth or sixth wild card? Let's take a look how this would look in the playoffs right now.

 

 

1. Broncos

2. Patriots

3. Bengals

4. Chiefs

5. Steelers

6. Texans

 

The Jets have a better record of course, but the Texans are division and it would be arguably "unfair" to not give them a spot. However, they have the worst record of the AFC teams so they get to ride the #6 seed.

 

 

1. Panthers

2. Cardinals

3. Vikings

4. Packers

5. Seahawks

6. Redskins

 

Once again you have a division winner sitting in the back. But the reasoning of why this is good is that you don't have a team like the Green Bay Packers who had a much tougher road than the Washington Redskins (look at the division alone) going on the road to play. The same works with the Chiefs against a team from the AFC south.

 

So say we have a situation like the AFC in 2008 where there is a team that is under .500 making the playoffs on division record. The 8-8 San Diego Chargers earned the #4 spot and got to take on the #5 12-4 Colts. This is an example of how broken division titles can be. If a team has 2 less wins than another they should not be in the playoffs. 2 wins more is where I'd say we should put in the higher record team. An 11-5 Pats team missed to an 8-8 Chargers team that year. Unacceptable.

 

In a system with 4-6 wild cards based on win differential it would allow us room to put in an entire division if need be.

 

Let's try last year's playoffs to give another example of how this would work.

 

 

Stays the same

 

 

1. Seahawks

2. Packers

3. Cowboys

4. Cardinals

5. Lions

6. Eagles

 

The 7-8-1 Panthers should not have made it over a 10-6 team, I think majority of us would agree. Under this system this issue would be addressed.

 

If there is any other option that is cleaner than this to address division winners seeding and better record teams I'd love to hear it.

[butta54 371]

Taking the top records into the playoffs with Conference record being first tie-breaker and Division record being the second tie-breaker, then home record, then points scored because I don't have time to look at common opponents or head-to-head which would be my choice for third tie-breaker. This year's playoffs would look like this:

 

 

 

1.) Bengals

2.) Patriots

3.) Broncos

4.) Chiefs

5.) Steelers

6.) Jets

 

 

 

1.) Panthers

2.) Cardinals

3.) Vikings

4.) Seahawks

5.) Packers

6.) Redskins

[oochymp 2,393]

at what point do divisions completely lose meaning? are we okay with turning divisions into something that just makes scheduling easier? I don't think I am

[butta54 371]

at what point do divisions completely lose meaning? are we okay with turning divisions into something that just makes scheduling easier? I don't think I am

 

I am. Scheduling and common opponents should be the main functions of a division IMO

[WeaponX20 26]

A easy to this would be to add 1 extra playoff game and only the number 1 seed gets the bye week.

 

2 plays 7

 

3 plays 6

 

4 plays 5

 

Division winners wouldn't get a home game unless they have a better record than the wildcards.

 

This year.

1.)Broncos

 

2.) Patriots

 

3.) Bengals

 

4.) Chiefs

 

5.) Steelers

 

6.) jets

 

7.) Texans

 

Nfc

 

1.) Panthers

 

2.) Cardinals

 

3.) Vikings

 

4.) Packers

 

5.) Seahawks

 

6.) Redskins

 

7.) ???

[Cherry 1,302]

Hahaha noooooo

[oochymp 2,393]

7.) ???

I believe that would be Atlanta, and do you really want that?

[Thanatos 2,847]

We do not need more seeds lol.

[SteVo+ 3,702]

After watching all four division winners lose this weekend, I say it's time for a change.

[RazorStar 4,025]

Yeah, only the top two seeds in each conference should make the playoffs. Screw all these extra garbage teams.